rankless nomenclature

[Richard Pyle]

Thomas Lammers wrote:

> And when USDA, F&WS, TNC, or any other user-group wants to do
> ANYTHING with
> that organism, what name will it take?  When textbooks are written, when
> field guides are produced, when we lecture to the Sierra Club, what names
> will we use?  Now, instead of one set of names and their
> synonyms, we will
> have TWO sets of names and their synonyms.  Please tell me how such a
> situation will reduce confusion and name changes.

I addressed this already in my last post, but I'll reiterate:  People will
use the system that works best in the specified context.  In all of the
contexts you cite, the Linnaean system will likely continue to be the system
(and only system) used, because in all of those contexts, the Linnaean
system works well.  We don't have to ram two names for every taxon down the
throats of everyone interested in biology.  If you view the PhyloCode system
as a tool to be used by specialists who have need for such a tool (i.e., for
those who are overly confined by the limitations of the Linnaean system),
and not as a nomenclatorial system for the masses, then confusion will not
overtly increase.

> This is not a live-and-let-live scenario.  The PhyloCode will impede
> systematics in its mission.  It is not a good thing for anyone.

I must respectfully disagree.

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle
Ichthyology, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
"The views expressed are the authors, and not necessarily those of Bishop
Museum."